Civil War

>>2372030

How are you defining "winning"?

If they had held up a little better, if say Atlanta holds until the end of 1864, it's likely that McClellan on a peace platform would win the election and there'd be some kind of armistice. But even that is frought with lots of difficulties, by the time Lincoln hands over power, he'll have conquered about half of the confederacy, and I can't see McClellan, even on a peace platform, actually giving back any territory that has Union soldiers running the place. And a peace is unlikely to be lasting, as long as you still have significant Union desire for forceful reunification, you'd probably see a second round of civil war in 5-10 years.


So in the long run, probably not. In the short run, possibly get a "win" of surviving as a reduced state.

There are 3 other civil war threads up right now.

>>2372042
For instance, if the Border States had been able to secede, or if the Confederacy had been able to secure the support of the British government?

If it emerged as a reduced state, would it have survived for long? For instance, having filibusterers go to Mexico to expand its territory or invading Cuba?

>>2372042
Basically, defining winning as surviving the war with its territorial integrity over the 11 states that seceded.

I guess having them survive as a reduced state would also be acceptable.

>>2372030
A total victory would be all-but-impossible, the difference in resources and manufacturing capabilities were just too great on the side of the North. The reason the South looked so dominant in the beginning was due to being blessed with much better generals and a defensive war being much easier to fight than an offensive one. Ironically the South did not actually have the resources to fight an extended defensive war.

The best the South could've hoped for was a favorable armistice that allowed them to exist as some sort of state, which would likely require McClellan being president, but the South's economy would likely be already destroyed by this time.

Just also wanted to chime in to add to the other points that the South itself would soon descend into regionalism and bickering just from the very nature of their government for decentralization. I doubt a second smaller civil war would have broken out, but the Confederacy as we know it would not survive as a singular entity.

>>2372106
Quick question, why we're southern generals better?

>>2372211
Many of them fought in Mexican-American war. That war was largely fought by southerners.

>>2372048
>if the Confederacy had been able to secure the support of the British government
I hate this meme

>>2372211

The union had a pretty bad string of guys at the top for a while there.

McClellan in particular was a victim of shoddy intelligence and overestimating the enemies forces. He had a handful of chances to crush Lee but wasn't aggressive enough when he needed to be- which is easy to say in hindsight.

I think for the most part the Southern generals were willing to push their men farther and were more aggressive with their orders because they felt that had to be. Fighting a defensive war and all.

>>2372264

That, and people just don't seem to remember the boobs and the dimwits on the southern side. Guys like Hood, and Pemberton, and J.E. Johnson, are all subsumed by Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Yes.

>>2372234

A significant number of Union generals fought in that war as well.

File: shelby.png (461KB, 640x471px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 640x471px

“I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back, If the Confederacy ever had come close to winning on the battlefield, the North simply would have brought that other arm out from behind its back. I don’t think the South ever had a chance to win that war.”

File: robert e. lee pwns battle of glendale.png (1MB, 884x642px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 884x642px

>>2372030

Yes if they had been able to do at least a few of the following

-Hold New Orleans (lost very early on in the war)
-Hold the Mississippi River (lost control in 1863)
-Convinced Kentucky to join the Confederacy (this would have expanded their territory by thousands of miles and add tens of thousands of soldiers to their ranks)
-Abandoned cotton diplomacy
-Gained diplomatic recognition from France or the UK
-Better centralized war production (ex. North Carolina was the only state that managed to produce proper uniforms for all its troops)
-Gotten planters to switch to growing edible crops like wheat and corn (this would have helped to alleviate the near-state of famine that plagued the Confederate Army throughout its existence)
-Centralized communication (Lincoln was receiving near hourly updates on all theaters of war via telegraph)
-Win a major campaign on Union territory (both attempts failed)
-Used prisoners of war as an auxiliary labor force (growing food, gathering lumber, building fortifications etc.) rather simply letting them rot and be a burden on dwindling Confederate supplies
-Better utilized the Partisan Rangers as a "stay behind" force that could wreak havoc on Union supply lines (Confederate government support for them largely stopped after the Lawrence Massacre)
-Not lose brilliant commanders such as Albert S. Johnston, Stonewall Jackson, John Bell Hood (didn't die, but his leadership substantially declined after his wounding at Gettysburg)

File: Georgia Palmetto Sharpshooters.jpg (122KB, 729x548px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 729x548px

>>2373292

>He thinks war is only about resources and not psychological

You need to believe that victory is possible and have the will to win in order to actually win. The Union came close to faltering on both of those several times in the war.

Remember, America fought the Vietnam War with one finger behind it's back (nuclear weapons) and still lost. Why? Because we lost the will to fight.

Also, despite their massive advantage in resources and numbers, the Union was at the end of its ropes in 1865, their unwillingness to enforce Reconstruction showed that.